authoritarian leader. They believe in American exceptionalism and know that Clinton will carry on the tradition of America killing and taking names.

But they probably want a strong, authoritarian, feminist leader.

I normally stay out of these Bernie/Hillary wars here on DU but that is straight up horseshit. I like Hillary, I like most of her positions and will be proud to vote for to be our President. Implying I want an authoritarian leader and should switch parties is such complete bullshit, you should be embarrassed to say such a thing on a Democratic board. I've always said the worst thing about Bernie are his supporters - you can be exhibit A.

because of her vote on Iraq but frankly I find that entire argument such bullshit it's hard for me to take it seriously. She was senator of the state where 9/11 actually happened and her vote represented her constituents - exactly what she's supposed to do. Extrapolating that into being pro-war is thoroughly dishonest bullshit. Fracking is a state issue and our governor has forbidden it in NY so her feelings on that don't tough me in the slightest. If states want fracking to foul their water, that's their stupidity to choose. As for the rest, nothing even comes close to what my main issue is which is the supreme court. I'll vote for Bernie is he's the nominee but I'm voting Hillary in the primary. You want to call me a fascist lover or whatever bullshit insult you want to use, go right ahead, it means nothing to me at all.

... using the continued use of cluster bombs.

Fracking spoils water that crosses state lines, plus she advocated for fracking internationally, so your "state" issue doesn't hold water.

Any Democrat will make better SCOTUS appointments than any Republican. Why not choose one who represents the people rather than Wall Street and the MIC?

nationally - it's that simple.

Don't want to look too closely at what you're voting for. That's a strange way to choose the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

It's still early: you could make a difference.

We're talking about a women who spent most of her time as SOS trying to bring attention to women's issues around the world. I'm voting for someone who shares most of my values and who can also win. You want to turn that into something nefarious or be like other posters and call me a conservative pawn, knock yourself out. I've ceased caring.

I would merely point out that voting for her because you think she has the best chance of winning, over other possible concerns might be a mistake if for no other reason than the fact that I don't think she does have the best chance in the general election.

Yes, she has a fairly sturdy war chest and lots of funding and yes, she has a fair amount of support from the superdelegates, and yes, she has nme recognition.

However, she has higher negatives than Bernie in a lot of the swing states. Bernie also seems to be getting a bit of crossover appeal. He has a considerable amount of energy and has been good at exciting the base.
|
Secretary Clinton, on the other hand seems better at exciting the republican base to come out and vote against her. That and the republicans have been planning to run against her for the last ten years at least. Personally I'd prefer not to deliver them their candidate of choice to run against.

She is on the wrong side of it and that doesn't matter to you? It's OK for some people to have their water contaminated because their state politicians agree with her?

Wow, is that fucked up.

She does not have a good climate plan. she is a globalist and a corporatist and it shows in many of her decisions, yet you give her a pass on all of this? Why? Because you think she is more electable?

Well, I'm hoping we are going to prove you wrong.

wrong and many knew it. It damaged Iraq beyond belief. It damaged this country also beyond recovery. She admits it was a mistake. How can you support a candidate that makes a mistake of that magnitude? What does she offer that out weighs that?

I don't expect people to judge me by my worst mistake. And I already said the main reason I'm voting for her is that I don't think Bernie can win. If Joe jumps in, I'll be one of his biggest supporters. And I think he can win. I have zero desire to support someone I don't think can win in the name of purity. The supreme court is too important.

paupers. I volunteer at a foodbank and believe me they don't give a crap about the Supreme Court. They worry from meal to meal. H. Clinton and Goldman-Sachs don't really care about the poor, they see wealth as the ultimate goal.

I live in the real world where I don't get everything I want.

poverty. We all live in the real world, some of us would like to see it better.

I am glad our founders didn't have your attitude. And I am curious why you though to include "lefty" in your name?

And in the two most consequential actions in her political life - the Clinton healthcare initiative and the Iraq War Authorization vote, she failed miserably. We don't need a finely tuned political windsock. And does anyone think she will ever break up the too-big-to-fail banks when here biggest donors are from Wall Street?

(and I'm getting pretty fucking tired of having to say the same thing again and again). I love Bernie - I don't think he can win nationally and have no desire to support someone for purity reasons. I want someone who I think can win.

with their looting of the 99%. At least we can say we won. But won what?

We need a revolutionary change to our government or we will all be paupers withing 10 years.

Your name includes "lefty" yet you support the conservative Clinton.

We are deep into a class war and losing badly. The status quo will kill us.

Winning IS everything when you're talking about the supreme court. So keep calling her a republican and a conservative - it makes no difference to me or to any other Democrat who realizes they don't want Donald Trump naming supreme court justices. To get change - first you have to win.

It's becoming absolutely shameful. The only Bernie turnoff I see are also his supporters.

a stand. The Oligarchy will bleed us dry unless we have change. Maybe you are ok with the 22% American children living in poverty while the corporations are making bigger profits than ever. H. Clinton has made it clear she is not about to hurt corporate profits.

It's time to choose sides. The 1% or the 99%.

Please report to Hillary HQ for fresh ones.

Problem solved.

100% better in every way.

She's pro-women and pro-minority. She is pro-working class and pro-union.

Yes Bernie is all those things, and I like Bernie's full throated progressivism, but I would also have not one problem pulling the the lever for HRC in the GE. No matter what her history is, having one of those Republicans in the White House would be 100% worse for us, especially women.

supported the Afghanistan surge. There was not an invasion or escalation she did not support.

... nor is advocating for killing a hundred thousand Iraqis "pro-minority."


So that invalidates your point.

I have never been so excited about a campaign
since Bobby ran.
Yes, I helped canvassing for Obama, but this
time I have put 1/2 of one of my SS checks in,
and am working much harder.
I think Bernie gives people hope that their
voices will not only be heard, but also needed
if/when he gets to the WH.

I'll vote for whomever, but that's it for financial support.

Bernie offers what the country so badly needs. It will be beautiful if he wins.

but Bernie has the voters enthused.

proud of- from inundating the social media accounts of political figures who endorse Hillary, to fighting with Black Lives Matter activists and carrying water for Gowdy and the Benghazi Brigade.

Tho here on DU the Clintonistas always play martyr.....

and it did not come from the Sanders side.

Stop it, just stop it, really. Not that the alert system and jury system works either.

by two HRC supporters.

here is the difference between you and me

1.- I am not on anybody's side, unless you count big money. I think that big money will win, so that is my man\woman.

2.- You are oblivious, as you said, to the ugliness coming from the HRC side. Trust me, it is there.

A lot of the ugliness, coming from the other side, comes down to POLICY disagreements. I have seen some, but I have yet to see a Sanders supporter, here or on the rest of the social media sphere I happen to hang out at, call a HRC supporter either mentally insane or racist. Hell the "evidence" of ugly editorials come down to ONE I have been able to track down, and it was pretty weak sauce when compared to the criticism coming from the African American community regarding Seattle.

Here is the other major difference between you and me. I hold those two people in utter contempt, not the campaign, not other fans or partisans or other name you want to use. I am game, you want to discuss policy, even foreign affairs, sure let's dance.

This comes down to the log in your eyes before you point to the mot on the other side, truly.

Now back to yet another email release trove. One of them, out the bat was curious, and I could not figure it out Well I think I know why that meeting took place. and if I find the smoking gun will lead to an article on energy matters... trust me, way too wonky. And no, not the kind of shit the United States Congress Special Committee on Benghazi would even have on their radar.

But this is on mine due to a piece we wrote on the Gas station in Ensenada... and all the games that were happening at the time. And the fact that it is considered a United States Strategic Asset. But hey, we could not have the Mexican Congress contact the State Department on violations of US Law, now could we? That is why I was scratching my head until I looked at the dates for those other documents coming from the Mexican Congress Like jesus, did I find the OThER SIDE? Maybe.

for you being called names, I don't support that kind of behavior on my "side" either. I still hold firm in my view that across social media Sanders supporters have displayed bullying behavior (BLM, Jane Goodall, Howard Dean, etc). On that we disagree.

but people disagreeing with him on POLICY. Yes, I read the full thing. I must have miss recent ones since I read the full thing as of yesterday at 12:00 PST. I also read a lot of disappointment from people, many of whom worked for Dean in 2004.

As to BLM, I heard far deeper criticism for what happened in Seattle from African American leaders locally, in the flesh, than I ever read from Sanders supporters. Some of it, I suspect, would make your skin crawl, becuase words were not held back. These were people worried about very real life consequences and we all are breathing a sight of relief that so far, their fears have not been put to the test. The longer the distance to that, the less those consequences will be tested.

Editorials on the African American press,. such at the Grio and The Root (and locally voice and viewpoint) were also quite louder than anything I saw online. So we disagree. We might be having a very different experience, but as far as I am concerned, the treatment by DEMOCRATS has ensured that I will maintain my INDEPENDENT status even after we leave journalism.

And lord knows I cover race issues and poverty issues as well. So want to dance? I am ready.

Goodall and Dean cases. At DU almost all criticism of BLM was pretty mild. I didn't follow the BLM twitter stuff, though, except the funny Bernie so black stuff. I have seen some bullying by each side on DU, but I have seen much more dishonesty by HRC supporters than Sanders supporters on DU.

Your impressions and my impressions are different, of course, but don't you think the whole Sanders supporters are evil meme is kind of silly? For the most part, the Sanders supporters on DU seem like awesome people.

you never have backed that up, but even if it were true GET OVER IT ALREADY

you would be calling the umpires for call outs, This is called a trap

I will not mention who they are, people know, I will not do a call out. Nice try though. Hell even one alert mentioned that by one of the jurors the calling me mentally ill. So FFS to you too.

By the way, I don't like you either, one bit, but you were not one of the two.

now you think I am a Hillery supporter? oh my, the great investigative reporter can't get simple facts right, OR back up accusations she makes about other DUers (ad nausum).

what a shock.


by the way, I have no idea what most of your post other than the last sentence is supposed to convey. you MIGHT try to skim and EDIT before hitting "post" occasionally.

I don't like bullies on principle. And that is what you do, ALL YOU DO. So it is what it is.

Have a nice day. As I told Metric System I am looking at Emails. unlike you I like to look at the evidence, not just take the media take on it. Most is boring, procedural crap, but hey, it is what it is.

and try looking at your own behavior once in a while (as skinner himself had to point out to you)

pointing out YOUR constant whining, call-outs and accusations of other DUers, factual errors, and lack of documentation does not equal bully, much as you relish your victimhood. it is just you being mistaken. again.

and how you chase and try to embarrass me from thread to thread.

In person you might be a wonderful, even caring and warm individual, but all I have to go by is your behavior online. And quite frankly since that is all I have to go by, I really have no interest to meet you in person.

There are studies, many of them actually, as to how online personas can be even 180 from real life. But I only have that online persona to go by.

As to my "whinning" it is not whining to point out that things like this have actually happened on this site. This is what we call facts. Bullies also like to blame the victim and speak of their "victimhood complex." Trust me, I have read enough on this to feel actually quite sorry for you, even have empathy But I realize you are not capable of empathy towards the mark. Ergo you could never validate their experience.

Again, it is what it is. Why your bullying at this point is anywhere from sheer comedy to pathetic that you still feel you need to do it, even when it stopped working.

clue: this is a public discussion forum. you apparently like attention. you post a LOT. you often repeat the same stuff over and over (especially negative stuff about this site and the members here). anybody who casually reads DU and doesn't have you on ignore can see it. (you could just paste the whining in your sig line and you wouldn't have to repeat it so often)

because I reply to you occasionally, does not mean I am "chasing" you around. I may or may not reply when I come across a thread or post by you (and actually rarely do, compared to how much you post). sometimes I see you post some bullshit and I feel like pointing it out. that does not make me a bully OR a stalker.

facts need documentation, your "facts" are just your subjective OPINION until they are verified. you claiming something or other is NOT a fact. ESPECIALLY your calling anybody who DARES to confront your take on some event a bully.

I think this was well established already.

And no, not anybody, just the few bullies.

And you have taken to telling me I was not called what i was called, ergo you are once again, denying my experience. This is typical bully behavior, Next you will tell me I deserved it.

I suppose I am wasting my time, and should get back to emails. FUN STUFF really.

You should have seen the PUMA's in 2008.

For the love of humanity, would please just stop?

Not gonna happen. If people are going to complaint of the horrible Sanders supporters who are mostly mythical, I can gripe about the two very real people who did that. Or is that ok with you?

I have posted two OPs that were shut down because they were meta or something, asking people to be civil with each other. At this point I am down to taking notes on this civil war. If the party should split (worst case scenario) due to this idiocy. well it will be news worthy. And yes, I will have that story and run it.

The lack of self awareness is puzzling.

Polls that she is spending millions to commission.

that is pure tin-hat.

billionaires AND the banksters that are bankrolling her coronation are paying for her internal polling and focus groups, that is correct.

Media blackouts, accusations of white supremacy, DNC cheating for her, money from the oligarchy, etc, etc.

Pretty much everything BUT the issues.

They are all in the same big club. and manipulating the "science" of polling is not a problem.

nt

to anticipate a few tricks.

TPTB are NOT going to start lying down just because a majority of informed voters express their wishes clearly.

And we should never trust them. Nor should Bernie. But I suspect he's experienced enough to know this.

Do you know anything about Senator Sanders?

to some savior rank in my op. There were facts. Deal.

And I know far more about him than you. I've lived in Vermont for over 35 years. I've met him both here and at his office in DC. I know him warts and all.

Bitter, bitter you. It's not a terribly good look.

With the name Cali I thought you were living in California
Nice to hear you've met him as well. It's good to be able to meet and greet your senators

never fails to excite, especially younger people.

Why should they turn out when we keep ignoring what they care about?

Here in NYC I see 'I'm Ready for Hillary' bumper stickers everywhere. Not to mention, that "enthusiasm" for Bernie may be doing him more harm than good, as highlighted by the numerous articles and videos about his supporters. And last, no, Hillary has barely started campaigning and will do so in the Fall according to her campaign team. Bernie is doing what he has to do because as you guys like to say "he doesn't have name recognition".

And sorry,they are facts- unlike the apocryphal crap about his supporters, which is not fact.

You're basing your "facts" on social media? FOX News has high ratings.

and I'm sure there are a few. But I hear this charge bandied about her on DU, but I don't see it.

like any partisan. someone just posted a thread about African-American New Yorkers for Bernie. do you folks get a daily talking points memo? i just heard this same crap from another Clinton supporter.

...we were handing out Bernie literature. The majority of positive responses were from the younger crowd, lots of "I'm not interested" from the Docksider-wearing contingent, and a surprising amount of "Not Hillary - not nohow" from the older Democratic voters.

(As for the "I'm Ready for Hillary" bumper stickers, I've been seeing them since 2008, and not many of them. They haven't seemed to have gotten any more numerous recently. To be fair, Bernie stickers aren't much in evidence either, but I have noticed a slight increase in the number of those I see.)

but several for Sanders. Of course, this isn't New York.

I have seen Bernie t-shirts and signs.

one car wrapped in Sanders 2016 though, kind of cool actually, this early you rarely see this in San Diego. Some shirts, no bumper stickers...to be fair, the stickers we have seen have been for mitt Romney and Barack Obama hey there is one still for McCain and the county still sports the Ron Paul sign on the way to Julian

That said, the largest event in Cali for the launch for Sanders was here and LA saw a pretty large rally. And our June primary does not even really count.

Just reporting in this. We don't intend to sport any bumper stickers or endorse anybody.

After a couple of days tabling at the MN State Fair, I would estimate a landslide for Bernie March 1. The campaign staff is starting to hook up with some heavy hitters. Polls are important, but only a snapshot in time and not very accurate in a caucus state. Six months on the road will tell the story. Bernie would be foolish to attack Hillary personally or otherwise because he's strong enough on the issues, besides which, if nominated he will need their votes. She has a solid machine, but in a caucus state the advertising doesn't
amount to much, because the delegates ratio is decided at the precinct level by the turnout of the faithful.
Personally I would like to see the anti-Hillary rhetoric toned down a lot and see a lot more positive comments. Part of living in a democracy is respecting other peoples opinions, and this race will not be decided by blogging.

As obnoxious as the bernatics have been on this site in particular, I do have to say it wouldn't give me pleasure watching either their feelings of sadness and dispair when he becomes the most ineffectual president in the history of the US because he is the man of uncompromising character they believe him to be, OR he dissappoints them greatly because he ends up compromising his values to make some progress go forward.

I think it'll be even worse than the profound disappointment many expressed because President Obama ended up having to compromise on some of his '08 promises in order to make the HUGE strides in progess his presidency has made.. even if he did have to disappoint some of those who initially put him there.

from start to finish thats all you had to say. sad

Let me put it this way. I won't be reading much more of this kind of bullshit you can bet on that.

that Hillary supports that you are fired up about?

Calling Hillary supporters "White Supremacists"

The lack of self awareness with Hillary supporters is puzzling.

and keep talking about Sanders' internet supporters and how miffed they are and how random internet posters have changed their minds about Sanders, blah, blah, blah. oh and they are also mad because Sanders' has been criticizing obama for SEVEN years and apparently that has pissed a lot of black (DU) voters off and they are also very, very resentful. and and angry...and who will vote for a crusty old socialist anyway! certainly not god-fearing black voters. a white DUer told me he knows how black americans will vote...cause he knows a lot of us...and they will not vote for a socialist!!!! at least they don't harp on BLM anymore, since i keep reminding them that sanders hired a BLM activist as his press secretary. the minions are getting sillier with each percentage point Sanders gains.

like mine, are important voting blocks, but each person is an island.

(I am an immigrant from Mexico and Jewish, so you figure how many ways to Sunday people try to pigeon hole me too)

with african-americans, it is foolish to believe any bloc is a shoo-in, as people routinely do here. i am doing my best to educate people about the DLC/third way muddlers. they sold us out a long time ago, so why in the hell should we continue to be loyal to them? i've taken enough for that team.

And the youth are especially aware.

So feel free to ban me. I just wish people would be honest and advocate for their candidate.

so i just stopped going there. i am commenting on a phenomenon, and certainly i am not above the fray. i want to try harder though. and yes...i think there has been considerable dishonesty from some people about sanders who are clinton supporters, and i know the opposite is true as well. it is, in part, the nature of the beast. and in part something else. what that else is...i am not sure.

The AA forum is full of Sanders supporters. There are two hosts in the AA forum that are Sanders supporters. So maybe if you're not feeling welcome it's about something other than your support for Sanders.

How dare you slight the front runner.

And finally having someone that you know will fight for you, and you look forward to working to elect.

The DLC, New Dem, Third-wayers, and corporate tools have made my nose pretty sore over the years, over party loyalty.

What a drag.........

Is not an inspiring message for people who have not experienced this supposed recovery.

BTW, the majority of comments on all websites are written by knuckle-dragging Birchers. Based on that observable fact, how keen do you suppose your predictive skills are?

In 2012, Ron Paul was by far the most popular candidate on Reddit and Facebook far outstripping Mitt Romney by every conceivable measure.

Computer literate bunch.

I realize that Hillary is making a strong play for the "turn that racket down, get off my lawn, stop smoking that devil weed, and can we please get the naked bodies off HBO, already?" demographic, but our party's landscape is actually pretty fuckin' different than that of the GOP.

knuckle-dragging morons? They are plenty capable of logging on and spewing venom.

....debate substantively on actual issues, logically constructing arguments, forming complete paragraphs and touching upon actual points of fact, not so much.

alienate the left wing and the Republicans hope they don't have to face Hillary. You think Sanders can survive
the Republican attacks, I don't think so?

They've got 30 years of opposition research on Clinton. Plus the email thing is absolutely perfect for a 30-second ad from an anonymous PAC - manila envelope with "SECRET" stamped on it falls into dark-skinned hands. "She gave away our secrets". Cut to video of ISIS.

And that's just the top of the dirt on her.

She has virtually no Democratic enthusiasm, while the Republicans are already foaming at the mouth to vote against her.

How do Republicans win? Low turnout. Clinton is perfect for that.

Within the Democratic party. Her support is waning, and has been since May. Eventually you folks are just going to have to face reality.

nt

LBJ was the opposite. The work horses are not charismatic. The charismatic ones are too pure to become work horses. So it is now and so it will always be. All of us secretly want "Nobody for President"---because it would be funny and fun. But we also want someone who will get the job done. Maybe we should borrow from Gore Vidal's Duluth and have multiple presidents, one the "Fun Prez." I nominate Wade Wilson.

Why can't Bernie match Hillary's fake twitter follower creation acumen? He's had all this time on twitter, and he hasn't made more fake followers? Can you spell I-N-E-F-F-E-C-T-U-A-L ???

It's a very presumptuous way to decide what's fake or not. Undoubtedly,
there are fake accounts...or rather, accounts that don't correlate to
a supporter/multiple accounts. Many accounts included are surely not
"fake" though.

Anyway, there are a ton of caveats to the definition of "fake" in those articles.

because he has the enthusiastic support of younger voters.

You know, the people we're going to be needing votes from for the next thirty or forty years. Which is why the "Ugh. Fuck young people!" attitude from her supporters is self-defeating. It makes it progressively harder to win elections as time goes on.